R SB v London Borough of Camden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Ms Karen Steyn |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2275 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2779/2018 |
| Date | 24 July 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2275 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Ms Karen Steyn QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
CO/2779/2018
APPEARANCES
Mr M. Sprack (instructed by Edwards Duthie Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Ms R. Hadden (instructed by the London Borough of Camden) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
THE DEPUTY JUDGE:
The claimant seeks permission to challenge the decision of 12 July 2018 made by the defendant, the London Borough of Camden, to refuse to provide services under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 and/or s.1 of the Localism Act 2012; in particular, the refusal to provide him with accommodation and subsistence. The claim was filed and served on 13 July 2018, together with an application for interim relief and urgent consideration. Ouseley J made an order on the papers on 13 July, refusing interim relief and ordering that the application for interim relief should be considered at an oral hearing on notice on 24 July; that is today. Accordingly, the matter has come before me.
The defendant has filed summary grounds, and both parties are represented. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate to determine the application for permission first before considering interim relief.
It is common ground that the claimant comes within the wording of para.7 of Sch.3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 because he is in the UK in breach of immigration laws and he is not an asylum seeker. It is also common ground that as a consequence he is not eligible for support or assistance from the council under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 or s.1 of the Localism Act 2011 unless the provision of such support or assistance is necessary to avoid a breach of his human rights. Equally, he is not eligible for s.4 support from the Home Office unless the provision of such support or assistance is necessary to avoid a breach of his human rights.
The background to the London Borough of Camden's decision of 12 July 2018 is as follows. The claimant is a 58-year-old Pakistani national. He entered the UK on 4 September 2001 using his Pakistani passport and entry clearance visa which was valid until 28 March 2003.
A Lahore entry stamp in his Pakistani passport indicates that he returned to Pakistan on 7 January 2002, and then on 27 March 2003 he applied for a further entry clearance visa which was granted. He was granted a multi-visit visa which was valid from 15 April 2003 until 15 April 2008. The date on which the claimant re-entered the UK using this visa is unclear, although he claims to have lived in the UK for more than 16 years.
Following the expiry of his visa, the claimant remained in the UK illegally from 16 April 2008 as an overstayer. On 6 October 2010, the claimant was arrested as an immigration offender. The Home Office set up reporting restrictions with which the claimant failed to comply. Then on 15 May 2014, the claimant contacted the Home Office screening unit to make an appointment, and on 27 May 2014, he claimed asylum. On 12 October 2014, the Home Office refused the claimant's asylum and human rights claims, certifying his claims as clearly unfounded. On 27 March 2017, the claimant made further submissions to the Home Office which were rejected by the Home Office on 21 June 2017. The Home Office determined that the claimant had not made a fresh claim because his new submissions taken together with those previously considered did not create a realistic prospect of success.
On 15 August 2017, the Home Office discontinued the claimant's support under s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The claimant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the Secretary of State's discontinuation of s.4 support was rejected on 6 September 2017. The Secretary of State accepted, in the context of that appeal, that the claimant was destitute, but successfully contended that none of the conditions for support applied. In particular, the claimant was not unable to leave the UK by reason of a physical impediment to travel or for some other medical reason; nor was the provision of accommodation necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of the claimant's Convention rights.
On 26 March 2018, the claimant made a further attempt to make a fresh claim to the Home Office. This application, too, was rejected by the Secretary of State on 27 April 2018. On 1 May 2018 the claimant made an application to the Home Office for s.4 support, again claiming that he was unable to leave the UK by reason of his medical condition and alleging that the provision of accommodation was necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of his human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”).
On 20 June 2018 the Home Office rejected the claimant's application for s.4 support on the basis that he is able to avoid the consequences of being left without accommodation or other support by leaving the UK, and the Home Office medical adviser determined that there is no medical reason precluding the claimant travelling or preventing him leaving the UK on a given day.
It is against this background that the claimant, via his solicitors, approached the London Borough of Camden for support in April 2018. The council provided the claimant with temporary accommodation and support whilst investigating his application and undertaking assessments. Initially a needs assessment was undertaken. That was completed in May 2018, and the claimant was found to have eligible needs. But given that the defendant is prohibited from providing the claimant with care and support unless not doing so would breach his rights under the Convention, the council then went on to complete an HRA assessment on 12 June 2018. The defendant concluded that there would not be a breach of his rights under Art.3 or Art.8 of the Convention if accommodation and support was not provided to him. Accordingly, on 13 June 2018, the council decided to cease providing the claimant with temporary accommodation and support save to the extent that the council offered, on a without-prejudice basis, to assist with the claimant's return to Pakistan.
There then followed a period of extensive pre-action correspondence as a result of which the council continued to provide the claimant with temporary accommodation and support until it made the decision (which is challenged by these proceedings) on 12 July 2018 to cease such accommodation and support the following day; that is from 13 July 2018.
The claimant seeks to challenge that decision on three grounds. Ground 1 contains a number of elements. First, it is contended that there is a procedural breach in respect of Art.3 of the Convention to the extent that the defendant failed properly to ask itself the correct questions, it is said, when determining whether or not there would be a breach of Art.3.
In my judgement, this aspect of ground 1 is unarguable. It is well established by the House of Lords' authority of R (SB) v...
To continue reading
Request your trial